1 The appeal documen ts list Smi th as the appella

nt, but Jenne

r & Bl ock is the true i

nterested pa r t y. No. 2-09- 0127 Fi le d: 6-11-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Mc He nr y Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 01-- CF--363 ) KENNETH SMITH, ) ) Defend ant ) Ho no r ab le ) Sha ron L . Prathe

r, (Jen ner and Bl

ock LL P, Ap pel l an t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEJO RGEN SEN

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: The l aw f i rm of Jen ner & Block LLP, 1 which r epr ese nt ed Ke nnet h Smith pr o bo no in hi s crim in al trial , appeals

from an or der denying a mo t ion as king t hat it be r eimburse d fo r t he cos ts of having tra n scri pts prepared durin

g the trial . It assert s thatsection 113--3(c) of the Code of Cri mi nal Procedure o f 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/113--3(c) (West 2008)) aut horizes --and i n these particul ar ci rcum stan ces , mandates --rei

m bursem en t. We h old that section 113--3(c) i s appl ic abl e to co unsel appoin ted under sec t ion 1 13- -3 (b) of t he Co de o nly (725 ILC S 5 /1 13- -3 (b) (Wes t 200 8) ) a nd was thus n ot a b as i s on

wh i ch th e c our t cou l d order the S tate

to co v er th ese exp en ses

f or pr o bo no co un se l. Ac co r din gly, we affir m.No. 2-- 09--0127

-2- I. BACKG

ROUND A j ury f ound S m i th gui l ty of f i rst-deg ree m urder a nd a ttempted arm

ed rob bery . The

court sentence d hi m on Oc to ber 29, 2008. On Novem

ber 19, 2008, defen

se counsel fi le d a pet itio n ask ing that Sm ith be p ro vided fr ee t ra nscr ipt s o n app eal and t hat Jenne r & B lock be r eimburse d fo r t he $7,244.90 it had

spent to have transcri

pts produced during the trial . Counsel ci ted Supre me Court Ru le 607(b) (210 Ill . 2d R. 60 7(b )) ( con cern i n g transcri

pts on appe al ) a s th e b as i s f or th e req ue st, b ut, wi th out c i ti ng sect i on

11 3- -3 of

th e C ode , a l so c i

ted ca se s i n ter pr eti n g s ecti on

11 3- -3 . A

t a Decem ber 3, 2 008 , h ea

ri ng , th e Sta

te took no p osi ti on on the request. The court , however, said that it was "n ot say in g that [t he] m

ot ion [di d] not ha ve meri t," but said that t here were "som e procedural pr o ble ms invo l

ve d i n i t." F urth er, i t sta ted tha t "i t [wa s] not th

e c oun ty's res pon si bi l i ty to pa y f or tra n scri pts of i ndi gent in div idua ls . It is the [S]tat e's respons ibil ity ." The court co ntin

ued t he hea ring fo rco un se l t o pr es en t au t ho r it y o n w ho se du t y it wa s t o pa y. On De cem be r 16 , 20 08, Sm

i th m ove d to have the Sta

te p ay f or produc ti on of tran scri ptsf or t he appeal . On Decem

ber 18, t he co ur t fo un d S mit h t o be ind ige nt an d g r an t ed t ha t r eq ue st as t o all h ea ri n gsf or w h i ch tra n scri pts di d n ot ex i st. On January 2, 2009, counsel f

il ed a n ew moti on f or re i m bu rs em en t f ort he co st s o f pro duc ing tra n scri pts al ready m ade. Thi s m

ot ion c ited section 11 3--3(c) o f the C ode as a basis f or such re imbursement and ci

ted case la

w that asse rte dl

y sh owe d th at, al th oug h th e s ecti on

re f er s to appoin ted coun sel

onl y , pr o bo no counsel i s also entitled to reimb ursement of reasonable ex penses. Counsel argu ed th at, because

of the trial

's com ple xi ty an d the existence of disputes ove r t he r eco rd 's con ten t, preappeal

t ra nscr ipt s we re nece ssar y for p ro per re pr ese nt at ion. Finally , t hey arg ued t hat t heNo. 2-- 09--0127

-3-

Sta te would ha

ve had to pay

f or the s am

e tra nscr ipt s for t he appeal

had they not already

been produced. On Jan uary 7, 2009, after a bri ef argum ent, the court deni

ed th e m oti on wi th n o com men t; counsel fi le d a notice of a

ppeal in Smi th's n am e. On appeal, counsel

argue that the deni al

was a resul

t o f the court's f

ai lure to recognize

that re imbursement was possi ble under section 113--3(c) , so th at the c ourt n

ever u se d the di screti

on granted i t to decide whether rei

mb ursem ent was appropriate. Under questionin g at or al argu men t, counsel ag re ed th at th e transcri pt c ost s they

had pres en

ted were for daily transcripts, whi

ch counsel co nc ed ed we r e h igh er t ha n t he co st s o f t r an sc r ipt s fo rap pe al. II. AN AL YSIS We h old th

at, as a m atter of law, section 113--3(c) di d not author iz e the trial court to order payment of

ex pe nse s t o no napp o int ed co un se l. Section 113--3(c) all ows the trial

court to consider t he expenses o f co uns el, but o nly as p ar t o f an a wa rd o f fees . We ho ld t ha t an aw ar d o f fee s is not proper for nonappointed counsel , such as J

enn er & Bl ock here. Section 113- -3(c) pro vides: "U pon t he fi li ng wi th the court of a veri

fi ed statement of se

rvices rendered

the c ourt sha ll order t he county

treasurer o f the county

of trial to pay co un se l o t he rt ha n t he Pu blic Defe nder a rea sona bl e f ee. The co ur t shall co nsider all relevant circu msta nces , includ ingbut notlimit ed t o t he t ime spent while co ur t is in sessio n, o t her t ime spent in rep re sent i n g th e de f en da n t, and expenses reasonabl y i ncurred by counsel ." 725 ILCS 5 /113-- 3(c) ( West 2008) .No. 2-- 09--0127

2 At o r al a r gu me n t, co un se l sp o nt an eo us ly ac kn o wle dg ed t o us t ha t t he br ief imp r o pe r ly quot ed the section. Tha

t candor was well

pla ced. -4- Counsel arg uetha t se cti on 113--3 (c) " requires

t he trial court to order t he county treasurer to reim burse reasonable

expenses in

curred by pro bono counsel." (Em phasi s i n ori gi na l .) The y ass ert that t he t rial co ur t "igno re d t he manda t e" o f the section, wh ic h they quot e as stating "that the trial court' sha ll

order t he county

treasurer to [ sic ] o f the co unt y of t rial t o p ay co unse l ot her t han t he Pu blic Defend er a r eas ona ble fee . . . and expe nses r eas ona bly i ncur re d. ' " 2 (E mphasis and om i ss i on in o r ig ina l. ) T his de sc r ip t io n o f t he se ct io n's ac t io n lit er ally e xc ise s it s in t er pr et ive di ffic ul t y. In ful l, sec tion 113--3(c) pr ese nt s a p ro blem of st at ut or y inter pr et at ion: it se ems t o a llow t he courtto award a fee

to "counsel

ot her than the P

ubl ic Defen der" (725 ILCS 5/113- -3(c) (West 2008) ), a ph r as e t ha t su pe r ficia lly

see m s to appl

y to retai ne d counsel, pai

d or pr o bo no . That is an ab su rd re su l t th at w e n

ee d n ot ac ce pt. "The ca rdi n al ru l e of sta tutor y con str uc ti on i s to asc er t ain andgive effect t o t he inte nt of t he le gis la ture. [Citation.] The b est evidence of legis la tive i ntent is the la nguageof the statut e, and when possible , th e c our

t sh oul d i n ter pr et th e l an gu ag e of a statu te ac co r din g t o it s p lain and ordinary m

eani ng." In re Donald A.G. , 221 Il l . 2d 234 , 246 (2 006). Howev er, a co ur t sho uld no t r ea d t he wo r ds an d p hr as es in ast at ut e in i solati on b ut shoul d, rather, read them i

n the context of the statute as a wh ole . Donald A.G. , 221 Ill . 2dat 246. Further, when a li ter al re ading o f the langua ge " pr od uce s absu rd or unjust re sult s no t co nt emplat ed by t he le gis la ture" as th at i

n ten t i s s h own b y th e rest of

th e statu te, cou rtsneed n ot accept a li

teral readi ng. Do na ld A.G. , 221 Ill . 2d

at 2 46. "Is suesof

sta tutory constru cti on are q ue sti on s of l aw th at [ a c our

t] revi ew[s ] de no vo ." Donald A.G. , 221 Ill . 2d at 246.No. 2-- 09--0127

-5-

Here, section 113--3(b ) of the C ode (725 ILCS 5 /113--3( b) ( We st 20 08 ) ) giv es so me necessary context . It pro vides: "In a ll cases, exce pt wher e t he pe nalty is a fine only , if the court determi

nes that t he defend ant is indigent and de sir es co un se l, t he Pu blic D efe nd er sha ll be a pp o int ed as co un se l. If there is no Publ ic Defe nder in the c ou nt y or t he defend ant re que st s co unse l ot her t han t he Pu blic Defend er and t he co ur t finds t hat t he r ight s o f the defend ant will be pre judiced by the app oint ment o f t he Pu blic D efe nd er , t he co ur t sha ll ap po int as co un se l a li censed a tt orney at l aw ** *." 72 5 ILC S 5/11 3--3(b) (We st 2008 ). Next fol lows a requi

remen t t hat a d efe nd an t se ek ing fr ee co un se l file an af f i da vi t of as sets; se cti

on 11 3-
- 3( c) t he n fo llo ws imme di at ely. Th e i m med i ateen vi ron men t of section 113--3(c) i s thus a p rovi si on f or th e a ppoi ntm en t of counsel for indigent defend ant s. T her efo re , t he most natural way to read sect ion 113--3(c) is as a prov i si on f or pa y men t of coun sel so app oin ted. Counsel

ass ert that the se cti on i s au thori ty f or atrial courtto grant expenses whenever a def endant is i

ndigent. T hat suggest ion would sound at least pla us ible applie d to the la

nguagethat counsel purported to quot e--in whi ch a trial court could order a rei m bu rs em en t of ex pens estha

t i s s ep ara te f rom an o ve r all g r an t o f fee s. Ho we ve r , we de em it a st r ain to thi

nk th at retai ne d counsel, pr o bo no or paid, are entitled to expensesunder the rubric of "a reas onab l e f

ee" (725 ILCS 5/1 13--3(c ) (We st 2008 )). Counsel argued to us and the trial court that, because section 113--3(d) o f the C ode (725 ILCS 5/ 11 3-
- 3( d) ( We st 20 08 ) ) , co nc er ning fee s fo rex pe rt wit ne ss es , ha s be en int er pr et ed t o ap ply when a defendan

t has pr o bo no co un se l, se ct io n 1 13
- - 3( c) sho uld as we ll. In fact, the wordin

g of that se cti on shows that the le gis la

ture has specifi

cally required the Stat e to p ay certai n e xp ense s ofNo. 2-- 09--0127

-6-

indigent defendan

ts no m atter wh at thei r s ourc e of

repres en tati on . Section 113--3(d) appli es to pay so me exp er t wit nes s c o st s " [i] n ca pit al c as es ** * if the co ur t de t er mines t ha t t he de fen da nt is i ndi gen t." 72 5 I LC S 5 /1 13
- - 3( d) ( We st 20 08 ) . T he leg isla t ur e c o uld ha ve eq ua lly well s peci fi ed that se cti on 113--3(c) also applie s i f the court determi nes that t he defen

dant is i ndigent (see 725 ILCS 5/113--3(d) (We st 2008 )); i t di d not. Th

us, th i s court cann ot pla ce reliance on cases such as Pe o ple v. E vans , 271 Ill . App. 3d 495, 502, 504 (1995), whi ch have acknowledged that section 113--3(d) is appl icab le wh en a defen

dant has pr o bo no co un se l. In h oldi n g th at c as es i n ter pr eti n g s ecti on

11 3- -3 (d) a

ren ot au th ori ty f or re i m bu rs em en t of expenses t o r et ain ed co un se l, we r ec o gn iz e that s ec ti on 113--3(d) has been subj ect to judi

ci al expa nsion. Th e e xp ansi

on of se cti on 1 13- -3( d) d

oesnot on

the facts here provide

pr ece dent for t he ex pa ns i on of se cti on 113--3 (c). S ection 113-- 3(d) pr ovides f or S tat e paym

ent of expert w itnessfees f orca pit al d efe nd an t s o nly, yet t he su pr eme court has h el d that, t o ensure thati

n di gen t de f en da n ts in noncapi tal f el ony c ases h

ave th e " su

b sta nce" of the constitutional

righ t t o call witne sses, such de f en da n ts also ar e ent itled t o ha ve the Stat e pay f or nec ess ary

ex pert wi tnes ses . Peop l e v . Wats on , 36 I ll. 2 d 2 28 , 23 3- 34 ( 19 66 ) . ( T he r igh t t o St at e p ayme nt o f ex pe rt wit ne ss fee s is t r igg er ed o nly when "th e e xp ertise

sough t goe s 'to the

"h ea rt of the defense." ' " Peo ple v. Keene , 169 Il l . 2d 1, 7 (1995 ), quot in

g Peop l e v . La

ws on , 163 Ill . 2d 187, 221 (1994), quot in g W ats on , 36 Ill . 2d at 234.) Counsel have suggested no si

mi la r constitutional

necess ity here. In their f in al argumen t, co unsel as ser t t ha t , be ca us e u nd er Ru le 6 07 ( b) t he St at e w o uld ulti ma t ely bea r the cost of al

l transcri pts on appea

l , it was i nh erentl y reasona bl e that the St at e reim burse counsel

for the cost of the transcripts al ready procure d at tri al . Thi s argum ent fai ls for two reasons.No. 2-- 09--0127

-7-

Fi rs t, as noted, counsel

ord ered daily

transcripts, whi ch , as c once ded b y coun sel, cost m

ore than t he st anda rd t ra nscr ipt s. We canno t det er mine the c os t s o f the transcripts h ad they been ordered under Ru le 6 07 ( b) an d, t he r efo r e, wo uld be un ab le t o de t er min e an appro pri

ateam oun t of re i m b ur se men t. We aremindful that t his issue c ou ld be cured by reman din g the ma tt er for further proceedin gs on t he differe nce in co st s. H ow ever , t he se co nd flaw in t his arg ument canno t be cured. Co unse l'ssec ond ar gu men t un de rRu le 6 07 ( b) is pr emised o n t he as sumpt ions t hat defend ant is fou nd gui l ty a nd i s se nten ced a nd th at trans cri pts are sought for appeal . Thus, had def endan t been acqui tt ed, co unse l wou ld be una ble to re co ver t he re as on ab l e c ost s of t ra nscr ipt s und er Rule 6 07( b) beca use t her e wo uld be no app eal. We cann ot accept the propo si

tion thatth e c ost s f

or tr anscri

pts arereasonabl

e and recoverab l e only

when a def

endant is f

ound guilty

and an appeal

foll ows. Rec overy of such an ex pend i ture ca nn ot depend on the outcome of a tria l. Ei ther an expen diture was reasonabl e when it was m ade, or it never was

reasonabl

e. We theref

ore rejectcou

n se l ' s a rgum en t, and we f i nd th at Rul e 607 (b) i s i na ppl i cab l e to the case a

t bar. III. CONCLUSION For t he r eas ons st at ed, we a ffi rm t he order of the trial

court deny

in g reim bursem ent to co unsel for cost s of transcripts. Af fi rmed. SCHOSTOK, J. , concur s. JUSTICE O'MA

LLEY, specially

concurrin

g: I agree with the maj ority that sect ions 113--3(b) and (c) appear t o addr ess the prov i si on of fees to appoin

ted counsel, n

ot retained counsel . Thus , I agre e w i th th e m aj ori ty tha t se cti onNo. 2-- 09--0127

3 I d o no t , ho weve r, join in the major ity's reason i ng f ordist inguishing se ct ion 1 13- -3 (d ) a nd related case l aw . Se e s l i

p op. at 5 -6. To m

e, th e di f f ere nc e b etw een s ec ti on 1 13- -3( d) on one han d, and sec t ions ( b) a nd ( c) on t he o t her , is t hat sections (b) and ( c) ad dr es s fe es fo rat t o rne ys, wh ile se cti on (d) add resses a cost o f l itigation, nam

el y, ex pert witness f

ees. Section 113--3(d) appli es reg ard l es s of t he t ype o f rep re sent at ion, beca use it has not hingt o d o w ith r epr ese nt at ion. Sec t ions 113
-- 3( b) and (c) appl

y to appointed counsel

, because they

address procedures rela

ted to appoin

ted co un se l. For that reason, I agree w ith the m aj ority that case l

aw holdin g that section 113--3(d) applie s in c as es de fe nd ed by pr o bo no counsel does not affe ct our i

nte rpreta ti on of sec t ions 1 13- -3 (b) and (c). -8- 113--3(c) does not mandate the provi si on of f ees to ret ai

ned pr o bo no co un se l. 3 Indeed, the concept of pro bono repres en

tation i s th at the a ttorn ey vol un teeri ng the repres en tati on al so volun

teers to do so at a re duce d or

n o f ee , w i th the dif feren ce i n f ee to be borne by

the atto rney

ra t her t han t he client (or t he St at e) . H ow ever , t his do es no t mean t hat pro b ono cou n se l ca n n ev er b e en ti tl ed to rem unera ti on for t he various co ur t - impo se d e xp en se s, su ch as t r an sc r ipt ex pe nse s, at t en da nt t o t he ir re pr ese nt at ion. For any

defen dant, in cl udin g a defe ndan t who has retain

ed pro bono co un se l, court charges(i nc l udi ng c ha rges f or trans cri

pts) are actual l y ass ess ed b

y the c ourt aga inst t he defend ant hi m se l f , not t he at t or ney, e ven if, as her e, t he at t or ney pays t he co st s initially. Thus , t o t he ex ten t a defen dant i s e n ti tle d to hav

e those costs w ai ve d due to in digen ce or som e other r eas on, pr o bo no counsel would not have t o be ar t hem. Fo r t his rea so n, I do not re ad t he major ity o pinion, or t he sta tute it i nterprets, as havi

ng the un savory

eff ect of penal

izin g the typeo f pr o bo no se rvice that I llino is pub l i c pol

i cy em pha tic al l y f avors. Cf. 13 4 I ll. 2 d I llino is Rule s o f Pr o fes sio na l C ond uc t, Pr ea mble ( "I t is t he r es po nsib ilit y o f t ho se lice nse d a s o ffice r s o f t he co ur t t o us e t he irt ra ining ,No. 2-- 09--0127

-9-

expe rienc e a nd sk ill

s t o p ro vide se rvices in the p ublic inter est for which co mpensa t ion may not be av ail ab l e"). Here, however, al though counsel

argued to t he trial

court that t he transcri

pts at issue were ne ces sary

fo rpr o pe rr ep r es en t at io n ( se e s lip o p. at 2) , t he y aba nd o ne d t his argumen t o n appeal in fav or o f the argum

ents the m

aj ority opi

nion co rrect l

y re j ects. Fo r that rea son

, a l th oug h I w ri te sepa r at ely

to poi n t out th at th e m aj ori ty opi n i on doe s n ot m ea n th at pr o bo no co unse l in all case s must ne ces sari l y pay court ex penses out of the i

r own p ockets, I

agr ee w ith t he major ity's res ol ution o f t his a pp ea l.